Memorandum submitted on behalf of the
Food Standards Agency (FSA) by Dame Deirdre Hutton, the Chair
of the FSA
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) notes with interest
the Committee's recently announced inquiry. While we have not
been asked to submit written evidence, I would like to take this
opportunity to offer our views. The inquiry raises some interesting
questions but I believe that our existing consistent and proportionate
approach to regulation, which ultimately protects public health
and consumers' interests in relation to food and drink, remains
equally valid in these times of economic downturn and uncertainty.
The FSA is aware of the burdens that regulation
and enforcement can place on business. However, some regulation
will always be necessary if we are to deliver our statutory obligations.
Maintaining consumer confidence in the food industry is still
vitally important during the current financial crisis.
We published our Framework for Regulatory Decision
Making in the FSA in December 2006 and are fully committed
to following the principles of good regulation; that regulatory
activities should be carried out in way which is proportionate;
accountable; consistent; transparent; and targeted only where
action is needed to protect consumers. In our Strategic Plan to
2010, we made a commitment to "seek to ensure that our actions
are proportionate, risk-based and outcome-focused, in line with
the principles of good regulation; that we foster improvement
and reward good practice; whilst seeking firm action against those
who persistently fail to meet acceptable standards. We want our
actions to be practical and deliverable."
By following these principles, and recognising
that the majority of food businesses are committed to producing
and selling high quality, safe food and wish to comply with the
law, we aim to create minimal burden on responsible businesses
and penalise only those that are wilfully and repeatedly noncompliant,
or seriously negligent with respect to consumer safety. The introduction
and acceptance of more risk-based farm assurance schemes (eg Red
Tractor) are an example of the trend away from regulation and
enforcement to a voluntary approach. By belonging to a farm assurance
scheme, the frequency of inspections is reduced and industry has
more time to spend on running and making a success of their business.
We also tend to take a voluntary rather than
regulatory approach in delivering the nutritional agenda to improve
public health. A current example of this is our drive to encourage
product reformulation by industry to reduce the level of salt
and saturated fat in ready meals. Several major retailers, manufacturers,
caterers and trade associations have already made good progress
in helping us work towards the salt targets and earlier this month
we launched our saturated fat campaign, which includes a 40-second
television commercial that is running throughout this month.
Where we can, we give consumers clear information
so that they drive change themselves. Examples of this are our
front of pack traffic light labels, which provide nutritional
information, and the Scores on the Doors scheme, which provides
information about hygiene standards in food businesses.
Over 90% of food regulation comes from Europe.
It is important that we comply with EU Directives and regulations
and we work closely with the European Commission to reduce the
burden of current regulations and the flow of new ones. The FSA
sets great store by seeking and representing the views of UK stakeholders
before and during negotiations in Europe and we are particularly
mindful of the need to assess the impact of any new regulations
on small and medium sized enterprises, where any additional burden
can fall disproportionately. This approach is particularly important
during the current climate, and in view of the fact that over
80% of food businesses employ fewer than 20 staff. We therefore
recognise that if we are to succeed in continuing to protect public
health, we must build appropriate relationships with these smaller
businesses and make it easier for them to comply with food legislation
and to be successful in a global market.
By making it easier for businesses to understand
and act upon what regulation requires them to do, compliance with
food law will improve, citizens will be better protected and consumer
confidence will remain high. We developed the successful Safer
Food, Better Business (SFBB) programme by working closely
with small caterers and local authority enforcement officers.
Its purpose is to help small businesses put in place effective
yet proportionate food safety management procedures that comply
with food hygiene regulations.
Along with other Government Departments we have
a rolling programme of regulatory simplification and we report
annually on our better regulation performance. We published our
third Simplification Plan and Report in December last year. This
set out how we are reducing the burdens of legislation currently
in force, how we continue to minimise the impact of new regulations
and how we are reducing administrative burdens for business. Above
all, we are an evidence-based organisation that considers both
the benefits and burdens of our policies on industry before taking
forward any necessary new regulations.
Our aim is to reduce burdens on business and
help them to understand and make best use of their resources in
complying with new regulations and initiatives by developing good
guidance and sharing best practice. To understand better the problems
facing smaller businesses, we undertook a sector-specific review
of regulatory issues faced by craft bakers and butchers producing
and selling locally. Our key findings were that they need clearer
guidance on hygiene approvals; a route-map to food legislation;
to know which guidance applies to them; and better engagement
on policy issues. We have also reviewed all our guidance and hope
to be one of the first Government Departments to publish a comprehensive
list on our website, which is one of the recommendations of the
Anderson review, published last month.
I have provided an overview of our approach
to regulation rather than answer the specific questions raised
by the Committee as I believe that by maintaining our current
proportionate approach to regulation we will assist food businesses
during the current economic downturn; deliver market stability
through maintaining consumers' trust; and protect the health and
other interests of the public.
February 2009
| 
